When the Dust Settles, Massie’s Constitution Suddenly Awakens

A Strike That Shook the Desert and the Dais

In the early hours of June 22, President Donald Trump ordered a coordinated, targeted airstrike against Iran’s nuclear weapons infrastructure. Operation Midnight Hammer sent B‑2 stealth bombers deep into Iranian airspace, where they dropped bunker-busting ordnance on Fordow and Natanz. Tomahawk missiles from U.S. submarines hit command hubs and cyber nodes. Pentagon officials confirmed zero American casualties and praised the mission’s precision and deception.

Trump didn’t mince words: We will not allow a terror regime to go nuclear.

While legacy media flailed to find the correct framing, U.S. allies largely responded with cautious support. Israel openly praised the mission. France and Germany urged restraint. Iran, as expected, vowed retaliation and labeled the strikes a violation of international norms. But the most surprising pushback came from within Trump’s own party.

Related:

Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky joined Democrat Ro Khanna to introduce a resolution invoking the War Powers Act. Their statement accused Trump of violating the Constitution by initiating hostilities without congressional approval.

Massie’s protest wasn’t just noisy; it was familiar. He has spent years turning presidential action into personal rebellion. But this time, the rebellion looks a lot more opportunistic than constitutional.

The Constitution, as Interpreted by Massie

Massie has positioned himself as Capitol Hill’s last true constitutionalist. Whenever a complex issue arises, he hoists the parchment like a pirate flag and sails into controversy. This week, he cited Article I, Section 8, claiming only Congress has the authority to declare war.

In theory, his concern might deserve attention. But theory collapses under the weight of his selective memory.

When Barack Obama conducted over 2,800 drone strikes, including unilateral campaigns in Libya, Somalia, and Pakistan, Massie was nowhere to be found.

When Obama used military force in Libya in 2011 without congressional authorization, even some legal scholars called it unconstitutional. Massie did not lead a bipartisan rebellion. He did not file a War Powers Resolution. He remained silent.

The principle of congressional war declarations didn’t bother him then. It only became a crisis when the commander-in-chief wore a red tie.

No Violation Here: What the Constitution Actually Says

Massie’s objection might sound patriotic, but it ignores two centuries of precedent. The Constitution names the president as Commander in Chief under Article II. That role gives the president lawful authority to respond to imminent threats with military force, even without a formal declaration of war.

Congress’s power to declare war remains real and essential. However, limited military actions, short-term strikes, emergency operations, and proportional retaliation have always fallen within presidential authority.

This is not a loophole. It is the way American presidents have operated since 1791. Throughout U.S. history, presidents have launched more than 200 military operations. Congress has issued only 11 formal war declarations.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed this authority in The Prize Cases (1863) when it ruled that Abraham Lincoln could lawfully impose a blockade during the Civil War without a declaration of war.

Modern courts have followed suit. They have repeatedly declined to strip the executive branch of its authority during unfolding crises. The courts recognize that war zones move fast. Legislatures do not.

President Trump’s decision complied fully with the War Powers Resolution of 1973. That law permits presidents to use military force for up to 60 days before requiring formal congressional approval, as long as Congress is notified within 48 hours. The Trump administration satisfied both conditions.

Massie knows that. His resolution does not defend constitutional integrity. It defends his brand.

A Pattern of Disruption, Not Defense

Thomas Massie’s objections fit a pattern that’s become tiresome. He opposed Trump’s pandemic aid packages. He blocked COVID-era small business relief. He voted against funding for border security and military appropriations. When the world required urgency, he demanded gridlock.

In March 2020, he attempted to derail pandemic legislation by forcing an in-person quorum despite members of Congress being self-isolating. Trump called him a “third-rate Grandstander.” That rebuke remains the most accurate summary of Massie’s political career.

Massie doesn’t merely question power. He questions it selectively. And when the nation needs unity, he prefers the spotlight.

What This Costs the Republic

Weaponizing constitutional language for political theater has real costs. It breeds distrust. It convinces citizens that every act of strength is unlawful and every response to aggression a betrayal of the process.

Trump’s airstrike was not an act of vanity. It came after credible intelligence showed Iran preparing to transfer enriched uranium to forward positions in Syria. Hamas and Hezbollah were reportedly briefed. The Department of Homeland Security issued a domestic threat advisory warning that Iranian retaliation might include cyberattacks or terrorism inside the United States.

Trump responded before the fuse was lit, not after the detonation. That is what leadership looks like in the modern world.

The Founders did not expect presidents to seek congressional permission every time American lives were in danger. They expected presidents to act and Congress to hold them accountable after, not instead of, decisive action.

Final Thoughts

Thomas Massie may believe he is protecting the Constitution. But real constitutional guardianship requires consistency, not just courage. Massie was silent during the Obama years and loud only when it suited his narrative.

President Trump acted lawfully, decisively, and in line with precedent. His administration briefed Congress. His strike had a narrow objective. It averted a larger war by crippling an imminent threat.

If Massie wants to restore Congress’s role in war-making, he should begin by introducing legislation before the bombs fall, not after. And if he wants to be seen as a true constitutionalist, he might consider treating Republican and Democrat presidents with the same scrutiny.

This nation doesn’t need more third-rate grandstanding. It needs leaders who understand the gravity of global threats and the cost of hesitation.

Stop watching from the sidelines. Join the fight for freedom and federalism with PJ Media VIP. Use promo code FIGHT and take 60% off your membership.